JOE ARPAIO – LET THE MAN GO

President Trump pardoned America’s Sheriff last week to the consternation of Right and Left. The way we look at it, Arpaio was arrested, charged and convicted by a bunch of liberal hangmen; particularly the Judge who held him in contempt.

Looking for similar situations we bring you to the movie action roadblock: a bank is robbed, the police are all over their citizen band radios, the alert goes out, immediately roadblocks are set up. Initial reports indicated that the perpetrators were Black.

As one vehicle after another approaches the roadblock the occupants wonder what is in store, being Black they don’t know what to expect. The police have orders requiring them to ask the occupants of all vehicles to exit the vehicle.

To their surprise they find that all occupants are Black.  Numerous violations are found, but the bank robbers are nowhere to be seen having outsmated the police. To those searched they find outstanding warrants, unregistered weapons, drugs and drug paraphernalia among the more serious offenses. Arrests were made because of violations of the law.

Now according to the left leaning libtards this was a travesty. Blacks were targeted, civil rights laws violated, individuals were targeted because of skin color. Comparing this to Joe Arpaio’s posse we find the same scenario. Arpaio allegedly stopped what was mostly Hispanic/Latio looking individuals. Why? Because they were the only ones on the road. Did he know that most of them were involved in criminal activity? Know! But that is beside the point.

Didn’t Obama let hundreds of thousands out of jail? All illegals!

 Hipocrisy

In a last major act as president, Barack Obama cut short the sentences of 330 federal inmates convicted of drug crimes on Thursday, bringing his bid to correct what he’s called a systematic injustice to a climactic close.

With his final offer of clemency, Obama brought his total number of commutations granted to 1,715, more than any other president in U.S. history, the White House said. During his presidency Obama ordered free 568 inmates who had been sentenced to life in prison.

OBAMA’S CIVIL WAR

There is no mistake about it, Obama was the most divisive President ever. Receiving the Peace Prize was a fallacy. Obama didn’t know how the world worked. “Might makes Right,” Words without backup mean nothing. Obama’s Red Line turned into a White Flag; he alone is responsible for 400,000 plus killed in Syria, not counting the havoc placed upon another 12 million or more. Obama, when history is written, will go down as the twenty century (Peace of Our TimeNeville Chamberlain .

His speeches inflamed minorities to revolt. Most if not all of Obama’s interpretation of events was biased in one way or another in support of race bating tactics that he hoped would ignite the civil war; he always longed for the final battle. Obama took the minority position when a White vs Black confrontation developed and that was before the facts were known. In other words he had a preconceived notion on White bias from the beginning.  The problem with Obama, he is half white; why did he turn against his other half? Because of his Mother who hated White people; simple as that.

Moving on to the Trump era we find hostility beyond the pale. Antifa gangs roam the streets, hired by alleged thugs from the Soros foundation; they are well organized, funded and armed with various weapons. Their aim is to take down capitalism. Former Attorney General Holder and Obama work behind the scenes.  Recently California hired this race provocateur to defend the state against Obama’s policies that they deemed harmful to the state. They are subversives hell bent on taking us down.  But wait, our time is now, Kennedy or Bader-Ginsburg are coming to the end of their careers, in Ginsburg’s case, life too. So the possibility of 6-3 Supreme Court decisions are in the realm of possibility. Can’t wait for the gloves to come off.

Look no further than Obama’s kissing cousins, the Muslim Brotherhood and don’t forget the golf game with the premier of Malaysia on Christmas day. Oh sure he is a Christian over our dead body.  “We are no longer a “Christian nation” speech was double talk.  We are a Christian nation in philosophy, maybe not religion, but that isn’t the point – the Judeo-Christian ethic reins supreme, always has, always will. Obama wanted to get in his Muslim two cents by combining it with other religions.

Click here for Dr. Ben Carson on Political Correctness (PC). Very important read; Great speech! Notice Obama’s posture! Dr. Ben Carson, a true American. Thank you. And don’t forget Obama and the progressive liberals (all Democrats) vigorously protect the education industry run by the TEACHERS UNION.
The thugs running Cuba received the blessing of Obama before he left office, soon after the guns were reloaded. But don’t forget the Zelaya affair in Honduras; Zelaya supported by Clinton and Obama against the Supreme Court of Honduras. Another example of the Obama administration supporting a left wing Communist government.

So when it is all said and done, Patriots like yourself know what end is up. We Americans truly believe in the law, freedom of speech and the 2nd Amendment, but will not sit still until the illegals are rounded up and sent back to their country of origin. Remember these criminals who broke into our country are responsible for 30 to 40 million anchor babies. This is an insult to our justice system. Once the Supreme Court addresses the 14th Amendment and they will, the decision and interpretation of it will right the wrongs of the past two centuries.

Read about it here; This article addresses are Sovereignty as a Nation.

“Birthright Citizenship”: Revisionism v Rule of Law

Started by Jim Delaney

We’ve all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution.

Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is an ideologically-motivated perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment as well.

By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better– have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.

During an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was Bill O’Reilly’s characteristically bombastic–and wholly erroneous–claim that “the 14th Amendment says that any person born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period”.  Poppycock! He couldn’t have read the amendment at all to reach this specious conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view is nothing short of bewildering and scary.  But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads can really be.

That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter.

Here are my findings and conclusions:

First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.

It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite assertions to the contrary from both the left and right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny US Citizenship to an “anchor baby”. In short, I was unable to find any convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of Congress–and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—to restate the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed.

Toward that end, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, HR 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) amends section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there is absolutely nothing at all revolutionary about this bill’s language. In any event, the bill failed.

Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.

To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” And it is in this plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing!
.
Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.”

Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”

On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil (jus soli) to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign governments.” This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s construction above.

John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”

To a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction thereof” was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (jus soli) but born of parents whose complete allegiance was to the US.

Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that “only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth alone—could an alien become a citizen.” This, of course, would mean that the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US.

Sen. Howard also stated the following: “…the word ‘jurisdiction’, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.” In effect, he was saying that an alien may, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien’s physical presence alone in the US would not render him/her under the “complete jurisdiction” of the US. Simple enough.

The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be illustrated by the fact that American Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension, aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship–when sojourning in those countries. Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process) be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be lawfully granted the privilege of US citizenship.

In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)

P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.

Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that assertion.

Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.

In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States”, thus reinforcing Sen. Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignities and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.

Then, in Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the childand not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)

In US v Wong Kim Ark (1898), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US and are carrying on business in the US, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment. But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the moment of their child’s birth on US soil? I suspect precious few. 

In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” However, and as can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided a definition by declaring that “the provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” And this from the framers’ themselves! (Clearly, majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can’t trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in the way of constitutional law?)

Despite the clear meaning and intent of the 14th’s framers, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy (1982), which some bloggers have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost unconsciously/unwittingly, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the glancing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—was woven into this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at straws, I’d say.

Then, true to activist form, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the court, apparently without access to the 14th framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning divergence from the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.

To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.

When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledeg***, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”

Finally, based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so many activists and social engineers infesting our courts these days. In the case of “birthright citizenship”, Congress is constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the the 14th Amendment, and that’s precisely what it should do.

 

 

TRUMP ACCUSED OF INCITING CIVIL WAR

BIAS ALERT

This is CNN: Don Lemon accuses Trump of inciting ‘civil war’

A CNN host accused President Trump of “trying to ignite a civil war” following his raucous speech to a rally in Arizona in which the commander-in-chief blasted the news network and defended his response to racial strife in Virginia.

Don Lemon, host of “CNN Tonight,” made the remark before a  packed panel of anti-Trumpers assembled to react to the president’s speech in Phoenix.

“He has given oxygen to racists,” Lemon said. “He hasn’t really said anything [to] denounce the alt-right … He is clearly trying to ignite a civil war in this country. He has not tamped down race.”

Lemon’s guests all heartily concurred, and the discussion moved on to speculation about Trump’s mental health, an increasingly  recurring theme on CNN.

“It was an astounding chain of lies tied together by lunatic asides by a man who obviously is mentally unstable,” Republican political consultant Rick Wilson said, adding it was “Castro-esque” and calling him “bat crap crazy.”

Democratic strategist Maria Cardona applauded the “majority of Americans who did not vote for this man.”

“Tonight, Don, America’s enemies are laughing and America, the country, is weeping and we need to do something about it,” Cardona said.

Later in the show, James Clapper, former director of national intelligence and now CNN national security analyst, echoed similar sentiments about the president.

“I don’t know when I’ve listened and watched something like this from a president that I’ve found more disturbing,” Clapper said, adding that it was “downright scary.”

“This behavior and this divisiveness, intellectual and moral and ethical void that the president of the United States exhibits,” Clapper said. “And how much longer does the country—to borrow a phrase—endure this nightmare?”

Trump’s remarks in Phoenix were reminiscent of candidate-Trump on the campaign trail, slamming the media over its coverage of his presidency—specifically noting his response to recent violence in Charlottesville, Va.

“They are sick people,” Trump said of the media. “You know the thing I don’t understand? You would think … they’d want to make our country great again. And I honestly believe they don’t.”

Trump continued to trash the media’s coverage of him, calling out CNN and saying “you wonder why CNN is doing poorly,” as the crowd chanted “CNN sucks!”

The president has repeatedly slammed CNN as “Fake News,” and in May, called Lemon “perhaps the dumbest person in broadcasting.”

JAMES CLAPPER – NOT FIT TO BE DOG CATCHER

WHITE HOUSE

Gregg Jarrett: Trump vs. crooks, liars and the liberal media

Gregg Jarrett

 

President Trump’s speech in Phoenix brought out the usual cast of misfits and miscreants.

And no, I’m not just referring to the “Antifa” anarchists who were, for the most part, denied their typical practice of wielding clubs, hurling feces, throwing rocks, setting vehicles ablaze and destroying buildings.

I’m talking about chronic Trump critics like James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence.  Spouting off on CNN immediately after the speech, Clapper said he questioned the president’s “fitness to be in this office.”

Lying to Congress is a felony. Yet Clapper managed to avoid prosecution for criminal perjury by hiding behind President Obama. So, when Clapper decries the “complete intellectual, moral or ethical void” of President Trump, the irony is lost on no one.

Clapper seems to be making a career out of trashing Trump.  He’s like a guy who can’t resist cramming a cannoli in his mouth every time he passes a pastry shop.  Whenever Trump speaks, Clapper starts yapping.  It is no coincidence that his mouth, and the lie that came out of it back in 2013, is what should have landed him behind bars.

While testifying before Congress, Clapper was asked, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”   The DNI responded, “No.

It was a breathtaking lie, of course.  Soon thereafter, the story broke that the National Security Agency had, indeed, been doing exactly what Clapper denied under oath.  When confronted with his lie, he told a reporter, “I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or at least untruthful manner by saying ‘no.’”   Huh?

Later, Clapper apologized for his “clearly erroneous” answer, but explained he had simply forgotten all about the massive government operation to secretly collect metadata on hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens.  That’s like saying Christmas slipped his mind.

Lying to Congress is a felony.  Yet Clapper managed to avoid prosecution for criminal perjury by hiding behind President Obama. Obama’s pal, Attorney General Eric Holder, made sure the case was tossed in a broom closet somewhere, never to be seen again.

The pompous media has never understood why much of America does not embrace their liberal values. Most members of the press are too insular and dogmatic to ever conceive of any intelligent beliefs beyond their own.

So, when Clapper decries the “complete intellectual, moral or ethical void” of President Trump, the irony is lost on no one.  Clapper became the poster child for ethical decay when he served as the nation’s chief intelligence officer.

At roughly the same time Clapper was spewing his usual drivel, Hillary Clinton was attempting to sideswipe Trump with her own revisionist rubbish.

Clinton, who mangled her presidential aspirations with acts of self-immolation unmatched in modern political history, is at it again.  Old habits are hard to break.  You’ll recall that she famously blamed her husband’s infidelity with a young intern on a “vast right-wing conspiracy” two decades ago.  She has been playing the narcissistic “blame game” ever since.

Her latest incantation is really quite laughable.  In a breathless recitation of excerpts from her new book “What Happened,” Clinton bemoans that the mere sight of Donald Trump during the campaign made her skin crawl.  It is the tripe of dime novels, but no less hypocritical.

Wouldn’t Hillary want to crawl out of her own skin because of her self-destruction? Wouldn’t she blame herself for the utterly unnecessary, but fatal, scandal of her own making? When she looks in the mirror, does she see a crook staring back? How could she not?

Like Clapper’s lies, Clinton managed to escape prosecution and prison for what appears to be a clear violation of the Espionage Act in the mishandling of classified documents.  Once again, Obama’s Justice Department provided cover, with a significant assist from then-FBI Director James Comey.

Perhaps Clinton’s most revealing line in her book is when she recounts her “lifetime of dealing with difficult men trying to throw me off.”  While it is intended to be a swipe at Trump, it sounds more like an angry confession of living a tortured life in the company of Bill Clinton.

There will be more self-serving excerpts to come.  Lucky us.

But Hillary Clinton and James Clapper are like pesky flies compared to the mainstream media.  Driven by its pronounced liberal bias, they immediately condemned Trump for denouncing them at the rally.  The president knows he can provoke them into revealing their prejudices.  And when he did so during the speech, they reacted like Pavlov’s dogs.

The gnashing of teeth at CNN was predictable, if not comical.  Calling the president “unhinged” and “wounded,” anchor Don Lemon declared that Trump “came out on stage and lied directly to the American people.  His speech was without thought, without reason, devoid of facts, devoid of wisdom.”  Lemon blathered on and on, but you get the picture.  He seemed to light up like a pinball machine when his guest, Clapper, launched into his “unfit for office” shtick.  Is it any wonder that the convention hall crowd began chanting, “CNN sucks?”

The pompous media has never understood why much of America does not embrace their liberal values.  Most members of the press are too insular and dogmatic to ever conceive of any intelligent beliefs beyond their own.

Which is why journalists never imagined that Trump would be elected president.  When it happened, they lapsed into something akin to “septic shock” from which they have yet to recover.  Likely, they never will.  They will persist in predicting Trump’s imminent demise and assert their own intellectual and moral superiority.

In so doing, they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction.  Not as a professional endeavor.  There will always be journalists.

But America will no longer hold them in respectable regard.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal analyst and former defense attorney.

 

ISIS BRIGADE STRIKES BARCELONA

Barcelona Spain, the site of the most recent carnage leveled by Moroccan Jihadists; 13 plus murdered in cold blood by an ISIS cell. Spain, a country on the verge of a split up is the home of 1.9 million Jihadists. Stealth Muslims practicing Islam peacefully until the call from Allah comes. It is the only European country to have a border with an African country (Morocco) and its African territory accounts for nearly 5% of its population, mostly in the Canary Islands but also in Ceuta and Melilla. Will there be another Inquisition is today’s main question.

 Looking back on history: The fall of Granada in 1492 marked the end of Muslim rule in Iberia, although a Muslim minority persisted until their expulsion in 1609.
ISIS Moroccan net primed to strike across Europe
After the ISIS Catalan cell’s two vehicle attacks in Spain, the Moroccan-based network’s terror cells across six European countries are poised for more.
Aug 20, 2017, 10:34 AM (IDT) from Debka.com

 

From CNN  Cnn.svg

Spain saw one of its most violent days in recent memory as a spate of incidents throughout the country appeared to be connected to a terror attack Thursday in Barcelona that left 13 people dead and more than 100 injured.Vehicles as weapons: A disturbing trend

Authorities said they are working under the assumption that two other deadly events, a terrorist incident in the seaside city of Cambrils and a house explosion farther down the coast in Alcanar, were linked to the van attack in Barcelona that had ISIS taking credit.
Also Thursday, two police officers in Barcelona were hurt when they were hit by a car, but police were unsure whether that was related to the other incidents.
The deadly events began in the early evening with a van plowing through crowds on the renowned Las Ramblas avenue, a popular tourist section of Barcelona. Authorities said of the 80 people taken to hospitals, 15 were seriously hurt.
As police searched for the van driver, Spain’s Prime Minister called it an act of “jihadi terrorism.”

Here are the latest developments in a tragic day:

• Two suspects — one from Morocco, one from the Spanish enclave of Melilla — were arrested in connection with the Barcelona attack, Catalan Police Chief Josep Lluis Trapero said.
• One suspect in the Barcelona attack is on the run. “The driver abandoned the van and escaped from the area,” Trapero said.
• About 115 kilometers to the southwest, there was a second attack early Friday. Catalan police tweeted that five suspected terrorists were killed in Cambrils. Emergency officials said six civilians and a police officer were injured.
• One person was killed in an explosion at a house in Alcanar, around 200 kilometers (120 miles) southwest of Barcelona.
• Catalan police said early Friday they are “working under the hypothesis that the terrorists taken down in Cambrils were related to the events that took place in Barcelona and Alcanar.”
• A driver ran over two police officers at a security checkpoint in Barcelona, police said, and the driver was found near the city. The two officers suffered minor injuries and did not need hospital treatment, police said. It was unclear whether that incident was related to the terror attack.
• ISIS’ media wing, Amaq, said the perpetrators of the Barcelona attack were “soldiers of the Islamic State.” However, ISIS has not explicitly claimed responsibility.

THEY WANT WAR – WE WILL GIVE THEM WAR – AT STAKE IS THE 1ST AMENDMENT

They did their job well, we give them A+; educators, AKA elitists have brainwashed our youth to such an extent they don’t know the truth and will never accept it;  it started a long time ago.  American history was rewritten by eliminating essential parts of our venerable and fabled story. Once the Federal government got into education the game was over. It started with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Liberal thinkers rewrote the rules, history books were turned into propaganda manuals. There was no choice, take it or leave it! Indians became Native Americans; well you get the picture.

But looking back at the real story, the one involving the Spanish Conquistadors (a Royal Hispanic killing machine) who plundered the Americas in their quest for riches (GOLD), we find wholesale murderers bent on destruction and blood sucking the indigenous peoples. It took almost 60 years of wars for the Spaniards to suppress the resistance of the Indian population of Mesoamerica. And it goes on to this day. RED LIVES don’t matter, they never mattered to the Spanish murders who have mobilized like locust by infiltrating our country with illegals and their progeny who lead the counter protesters. We must stop them before it is too late. But can we?

As the protest and counter protest plays out we are find a common thread. The counter protesters are definitely adverse to different points of view. The 1st Amendment only suits them when you Agree with them.  (click) ANTIFA (anti facist action), the left wing anarchist group of provocateurs looking for a fight. They are usually anti-government and anti-capitalist, and their methodologies and tactics are more aggressively violent and anarchistic than those of associated groups in the far left. We are prepared for MORTAL COMBAT, they are pussy driven and will run like birds flying from the first sound of a shotgun going off. We number in the millions, they but a handful.

Let it be known that the alt-right has never succumbed to violence, it is always the alt-left that initiates the battle, but the alt-right has no choice but to defending their turf.  However, we have the police on our side; once these Anitifa’s get out of hand the Governors will have no choice but to fire on them; we know the Republican governors will, but will Democrat governors up the ante. We shall see!

 REVOLUTION IT WILL BE  – DEATH TO THE TRAITORS

CLICK HERE for the organizations funded by George Soros.

WOW! AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK By These 187 Organizations Directly Funded By George Soros

Tomi Lahren on police hatred from the alt-Left

WHY “NATIVE AMERICANS” SHOULD GO ON THE WARPATH

Don’t be mistaken but those of us who reside in America do so because our forefathers killed millions of NATIVE AMERICANS. But who were our forefathers. They say Columbus discovered America. Who sponsored him? Born in the Republic of Genoa, under the auspices of the Catholic Monarchs of Spain he completed four voyages across the Atlantic Ocean. Those voyages and his efforts to establish settlements on the island of Hispaniola initiated the permanent European colonization of the New World.

During his first voyage in 1492,landing on an island in the Bahamas.  Over the course of three more voyages, he visited the Greater and Lesser Antilles, as well as the Caribbean coast of Venezuela and Central America, claiming all of it for the Crown of Castile. He spearheaded the transatlantic slave trade and has been accused by several historians of initiating the genocide of the Hispaniola natives. Columbus himself saw his accomplishments primarily in the light of spreading the Christian religion.

The scholar Amerigo Vespucci, who sailed to America in the years following Columbus’s first voyage, was the first to speculate that the land was not part of Asia but in fact constituted some wholly new continent previously unknown to Eurasians. His travel journals, published 1502–04, convinced German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller to reach the same conclusion, and in 1507—a year after Columbus’s death—Waldseemüller published a world map calling the new continent America from Vespucci’s Latinized name “Americus”.

The name Columbia for “America” first appeared in a 1738 weekly publication of the debates of the British Parliament. The use of Columbus as a founding figure of New World nations and the use of the word “Columbia”, or simply the name “Columbus”, spread rapidly after the American Revolution.

More recent views of Columbus have been critical of his colonization and treatment of natives. Among reasons for this criticism is the treatment and disappearance of the native Taino people of Hispaniola, where Columbus began a rudimentary tribute system for gold and cotton. The people disappeared rapidly after contact with the Spanish because of overwork and the first pandemic of European diseases, which struck Hispaniola after 1519.[114][115] De las Casas records that when he first came to Hispaniola in 1508, “there were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it….” Modern estimates for the pre-Columbian population of Hispaniola are around 250,000–300,000. According to the historian Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes by 1548, 56 years after Columbus landed, fewer than five hundred Taino were left on the island. 

CLICK HERE for more from Wikipedia

The Native American genocide wiped out the majority of Native Americans.

American Indian Genocide or American Indian Holocaust are terms used by specialists in American Indian history, as well as American Indian activists, to bring attention to what they contend is the deliberate mass destruction of American Indian populations following the European arrival in the Americas, a subject which they allege has hitherto received very limited mention in history, partially because some of the deaths happened before European chroniclers arrived to record them. Many acts which American Indian activists view as genocide are sometimes brushed aside as wartime deaths by non-Indians.

Estimates of the pre-Columbian population vary widely, though uncontroversial studies place the figure for North, Central and South America at a combined 50 million to 100 million, with scholarly estimates of 2 million to 18 million for North America alone. An estimated 80% to 90% of this population perished after the arrival of Europeans, overwhelmingly from factors which deniers of genocide argue were beyond most human control — e.g., smallpox epidemics — Europeans, especially the Spanish conquistadors, also killed thousands deliberately.

The Native Americans today are demanding an end to COLUMBUS DAY, renaming the District of Columbia and all cities and towns named after Columbus. But most of all they DEMAND THE DESTRUCTION of all monuments celebrating CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS.

What Robert E. Lee did was small potatoes compared to the Spanish Conquistadors. And who are those demanding the wiping out of General Robert E. Lee’s legacy? Latinos and their liberal progressives who are hell bent on rewriting our glorious history. 

WE NEED ALL THE GENERAL ROBERT E. LEE’S WE CAN FIND. 

I’M BETTER THAN YOU – E UNUM PLURIBUS

Identity politics has usurped American culture to such an extent that being American has lost its meaning,  dissipated to its own device.  What was E Pluribus Unum has been turned on its head. What was is not. Upon arriving to our shores different cultures assimilated into the culture of America, all became one. English was the grease that made this possible. Of course there were differences, likes neighbored together, but when together they spoke the culture of America, the citizenship of each other. Today this paradigm has been shattered. How did we come to this schism?

It all started with the “I want my rights.” I am a Hispanic/Latino, therefore I want teachers fluent in Spanish. No English for us. This demand gathered moss in more ways than one. First of all being taught in a language different from the main caused underlying animosity because it reflected a forced culture on the majority. Why cater to them? Secondly, acquiescing to their demand became mainstream as others wanted theirs. Individual issues were now mainstream.

Lesbians demanded equal rights, women jumped in on the equal pay issue, Gays hopped aboard, Black Lives Matter pressed their case and then the illegal criminals with the help of the bleeding heart liberals hopped on board. What started as a single issued snowballed to where we are now. And where are we? America is divided. A microcosm of the world itself.

e plu·ri·bus u·num
ˌē ˌplo͝orəbəs ˈ(y)o͞onəm/
noun
  1. out of many, one (the motto of the US).
    OBAMA NEVER BELIEVED in our MOTTO, HE STRESSED IDENTITY POLITICS FROM THE BEGINNING. DIVIDE AND CONQUER
    To the liberal malcontent, anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is an existential enemy. The liberal progressive thug is a snake in the grass, waiting to counter the RIGHT at every turn. We are ready for them, locked and loaded.

Rod Thomson

This was all so obviously inevitable, the predictable result of divisive identity politics perpetrated on the American people — the exact opposite of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Unfortunately, it won’t end in Charlottesville. The alt right and white supremacists, the Antifa and BLM groups — none of whom represent the best or even the good in America — will arm up, plan and ramp up the hatred and divisiveness. Because that is what comes from slicing up Americans by every conceivable grievance.

And instead of calling us higher, to the vision of America as a shining city on a hill, too many Washington politicians will do their best to take personal advantage of the situation. And already have. Democrats have been doing that for years by carving Americans along race, ethnicity, gender and income and pitting them against each other to get the votes of the aggrieved. It’s a directly dis-unifying strategy. Trump appealed to the backlash from that and while he is not a white supremacist, there’s no doubt he attracted their support.

Let’s get a couple of points clear. The alt right is not principled conservatism, or at least the racist elements are not. White supremacists are definitely not conservative. The rally in Charlottesville was ugly and unAmerican in its very origins, long before the violence broke out Saturday. Racists’ actions are hateful and should be called out — whether by whites or blacks or browns or whomever.

But there’s the problem, the step back to see a broader context for Saturday. According to many Americans on the left, particularly in academia, blacks actually cannot be racist because they are a minority and were oppressed by whites in the South 50 years ago. It’s true that they were, but the idea that racism can only come from the majority is nonsensical. Are only blacks racist in South Africa where they are the huge majority? Of course not. Hispanics, the left claims, cannot be racist because they’ve been oppressed by whites all the way back to the initial European settlers — which is not really historically accurate, but it still works to divide. Only whites can be racist by this theory. Yes, that is precisely what the thought-leaders on the left preach and teach, and it works to be wonderfully divisive.

So this did not happen in a vacuum on Saturday. Let’s also be clear on plain human nature. A nation cannot tell an entire class of its people — in this iteration, white males — that they are the source of the country’s evils and have no legitimate opinion on entire swaths of issues. From college campuses to social media, white males are told to check their privilege, sit down and shut up. Literally. That is as unAmerican as the Charlottesville marchers.

If blacks are not supposed to listen to whites because they are white, and Hispanics are not supposed to listen to whites because they are whites, and women aren’t supposed to listen to white men because they are men (I know, it’s not consistent but it is part of intersectional politics, see below) then how does this possibly end well?

To put a fine point on the obvious, it doesn’t.

To think there would not be a backlash by some in the target group was naive at best. Purposeful at worst. To think that when violence was being perpetrated by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, that violence would not be perpetrated by white supremacists, was naive at best. Purposeful at worst.

Why purposeful at worst? Because there is a long line of philosophy on the far left that in order to overthrow the strong national order in the United States, American society must be foundationally destabilized.

MUELLER’S GOOSE CHASE

In the world of criminals laws are broken with impunity, offenses committed before a forensic team is dispatched; that charge is to gather evidence in support of an arrest. This does not hold true for Donald Trump. He “breathes” therefore he is guilty as charged. By whom?

We know full well that the alt-Left was gunning for him the night of November 8, 2017. His election wasn’t a third world ‘stuff the ballot’ type with irregularities and intimidation. This was not Chicago, this was not Russia, this was not Cuba, this was not Venezuela, this was America. The election was free and credible without any outside interference. Remember Obama was at the helm. Don’t you think he would have been on this like a cheap suit?  

So what is Mueller and the alt-Left investigating?  What else – RUMORS. Can you believe this, in today’s day and age they are investigating FAKE NEWS. And fake news at that, spread by the alt-Left media.

Some how amnesia sets in when the real culprits are Democrat thugs – we are talking about Slick Willie, Hillary (lock her up) Clinton, Donna Mills, Susan Rice, John Podesta, Wasserman-Schultz, Susan Power, Lois Lerner, IRS chief Koskinen.